The new legislation raised the threshold to $100 billion and instructed the Fed to consider leniencies for even larger banks.
|
|
The government has loosened a number of the key strictures imposed on banks and other financial firms in the wake of the 2008 crisis, and more leniencies are in the pipeline.
|
|
Halachic consensus, following Maimonides, is, though, that leniencies apply even to Torah-mandated yichud laws.
|
|
They have been codified in various codes of Jewish law and tradition, such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (12th century) and Joseph Karo's Shulchan Aruch (16th century). These practices are most commonly observed within Orthodox Judaism. In Conservative Judaism, the practices are normative, with certain leniencies and exceptions. Ritual washing is not generally performed in Reform Judaism.
|
|
12 No. 7. 18 Kislev 5763/November 23, 2002. Rashi maintained that insofar as the prohibition of yichud is mandated by the Torah, it is an essential prohibition, whereas rabbinical extensions of the prohibition are enacted as a fence meant to distance a person from forbidden relationships. Hence, leniencies would apply only to the rabbinic additions to the laws of yichud.
|
|
Wanted poster On November 23, 1936, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the various Bruno family petitions for retrials. Arrangements were made for their transfer to Eastern State Penitentiary. The two Republican members, Alvin Maurer and Philip Ehrig, of the County CommissionThe third Commissioner was an uninvolved Democrat. ordered Warden Herbert Gosselin to allow even more leniencies, and unsupervised family visits increased.
|
|
The classical rabbis interpreted to mean that they should (metaphorically) create a protective fence around the biblical laws,Yebamot 21a and this was one of the three principle teachings of the Great Assembly.Pirkei Avot 1:1 Mixing of milk and meat is one area of halacha where a particularly large number of "fences" have been added. Nevertheless, the rabbis of the classical and Middle Ages also introduced a number of leniencies.
|
|
Bein Hashemashot (בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, literally between the suns) is the period between sunset and nightfall, and is considered a time of questionable status. On the Sabbath, festivals, and fast days the stringencies of both the previous and following days apply. For example, if the fast of Tish'a Ba'av immediately follows the Sabbath, the intervening Bein Hashemashot is forbidden in eating, drinking, and working. However, there are occasional leniencies.
|
|
Both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism currently have multiple views on the reason for contemporary observance of ritual washing and immersion obligation. In Orthodox Judaism, opinion is generally split between a view that maintains that those Biblical rules related to ritual purity that are possible to observe in the absence of a Temple and a Red heifer remain in force, and Jews remain Biblically-obligated to observe such of them as they can, and a view that Biblical ritual impurity requirements apply only in the presence of a Temple in Jerusalem, and the current rules represent only rabbinic ordinances, practices decreed by the Rabbis in memory of the Temple. In December 2006, Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards issued three responsa on the subject of Niddah. All three ruled the traditional requirements of ritual washing remained in effect for Conservative Jews (with some leniencies and liberalization of interpretation), but disagreed on the reasoning for continuing this practices, as well as on the validity of specific leniencies.
|
|
A fourth difference suggested, relates to the acceptability of moderation within Jewish law. Both Modern Orthodoxy and Ultra Orthodoxy regard Halakha as divine in origin, and as such, no position is assumed without justification in the Shulchan Aruch and in the Acharonim. The movements differ, however, in their approach to strictures (chumras) and leniencies (kulas). Modern Orthodoxy holds that strictures are not normative, rather, these are a matter of personal choice;Rabbi Saul Berman (edah.
|
|
The Sabbath, widely desecrated by the majority of German Jews, was discussed. Participants argued whether leniencies for civil servants should be enacted, but could not agree and released a general statement about its sanctity. Holdheim shocked the assembled when he proposed his "Second Sabbath" scheme, astonishing even the radical wing, and his motion was rejected offhand. They did vote to eliminate the Second Day of Festivals, noting it was both an irrelevant rabbinic ordinance and scarcely observed anyway.
|
|
This is because an increased ease of function is not considered a benefit. When the activity desired is itself only rabbinically prohibited, it may be permitted to tell a non-Jew to perform the activity for important reasons, such as a communal benefit (such as a power outage in the synagogue) or a mitzvah (such as circumcision). This principle is known as shevut deshevut bimkom mitzvah. There are also leniencies in the event of a sick person, including even minor discomfort among very young children.
|
|
Although the mitzvah of orlah is listed in the category of prohibitions pertaining to the Land of Israel alone ("מצווה שתלויה בארץ ישראל"), it is the only mitzvah of this category that applies outside of Israel as well - with certain leniencies (mishna, Kidushin ch. 1, Mishna 9). This application is forthcoming due to it being listed as a "Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai" (a law given to Moses at Sinai, Sifra, 23:14). The tanna Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus holds the opinion that the prohibition of orlah does not apply outside the land of Israel at all.
|
|
He noted that he himself did not rely on the leniency, it was intended only in a limited time of great need, for those unable to observe the shmita without the leniency. The heter mechira was accepted by Modern Orthodox Judaism and is one of the classic examples of the Modern Orthodox approach toward adapting classical Jewish law to the modern world. However, this approach has not been universally accepted in the Orthodox community and has met with opposition, particularly from Haredi poskim (authorities of Jewish law). In contemporary religious circles these rabbinic leniencies have received wide but not universal acceptance.
|
|
Conservative services generally use the same basic format for services as in Orthodox Judaism, with some doctrinal leniencies and some prayers in English. In practice, there is wide variation among Conservative congregations. In traditionalist congregations the liturgy can be almost identical to that of Orthodox Judaism, almost entirely in Hebrew (and Aramaic), with a few minor exceptions, including excision of a study session on Temple sacrifices, and modifications of prayers for the restoration of the sacrificial system. In more liberal Conservative synagogues there are greater changes to the service, with up to a third of the service in English; abbreviation or omission of many of the preparatory prayers; and replacement of some traditional prayers with more contemporary forms.
|
|
However, the Chazon Ish, who holds that the biblical obligation of Shmita observance remains in effect today, holds that the biblical promise of bounty follows it and Divine bounty is promised to Jews living in the Land of Israel today, just as it was promised in ancient times. However, he holds that Jews should generally not demand miracles from Heaven and hence that one should not rely on this promise for one's sustenance, but should instead make appropriate arrangements and rely on permissible leniencies. Haredi Jews tell stories of groups of Israeli Jews who kept the Shmita and experienced remarkable agricultural events which they describe as representative of miracles in fulfillment of the biblical promise of bounty. One famous story is told about the then-two-year-old village of Komemiyut during the 1952 Shmita.
|
|
In doing so, it adopted multiple opinions regarding details, including an opinion re-affirming traditional (Orthodox) practices and concepts, an opinion adapting certain leniencies, including counting seven days from start of menstruation, rather than its end, and an opinion re- formulating the theological basis of the practice, basing it on concepts other than ritual purity. See the Niddah article for details. Classical ritual immersion and associated requirements are generally not observed by Reform Judaism or Reconstructionist Judaism, with the exception that both generally include immersion as part of the ritual for Conversion to Judaism, although Reform Judaism does not require it. Tumat HaMet ("The impurity of death"), coming into contact with a human corpse, is considered the ultimate impurity, one which cannot be purified through the waters of the mikvah alone.
|
|
These regulations were variously observed by the ancient Israelites; contemporary Orthodox Jews and (with some modifications and additional leniencies) some Conservative Jews continue to observe the regulations, except for those tied to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem, as the Temple no longer fully exists. These groups continue to observe many of the hand-washing rituals. Of those connected with full ritual immersion, perhaps the quintessential immersion rituals still carried out are those related to nidda, according to which a menstruating woman must avoid physical contact with her husband, especially avoiding sexual contact, and may only resume contact after she has first immersed herself fully in a mikvah of living water seven days after her menstruation has ceased. In December 2006, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative Judaism re-affirmed the traditional requirement that Conservative women ritually immerse following menstruation.
|
|
10), accorded with the middle option, that the biblical obligation holds only when a majority of the Jewish people is living in the biblical Land of Israel and hence the Shmita nowadays is a rabbinic obligation in nature. This approach potentially admits for some leniencies which would not be possible if the Shemitah were biblical in origin, including the aforementioned sale of the land of Israel. Haredi authorities, on the other hand, generally follow the view of the Chazon Ish, that the Shmita continues to be a biblical obligation. Rabbi Joshua Falk, author of Sefer Me'irat Einayim on Choshen Mishpat, holds that Shmita nowadays is only a rabbinic obligation, and, subsequently, the biblical promise of bounty for those who observe the Shmita (Leviticus 25:20–22) only applies when the biblical obligation is in effect, and hence that the biblical promise of bounty is not in effect today.
|
|
The laws of medicine use on the Sabbath are complex; they are based around the kind of illness the patient is suffering from and the type of medication or procedure that is required. Generally, the more severe the illness (from a halaḥic perspective) the further into the list the patient's situation is classed. As a patient is classed as more ill there are fewer restrictions and greater leniencies available for treating the illness on the Sabbath. The list of definitions, from least to most severe, is as follows: # / Mayḥush b'Alma / Minor Indisposition # / Mikṣat Ḥoli / Semi-illness # / Ṣa'ar Gadol / Severe Pain (Can in some cases be practically regarded as level 4) # / Ḥoleh Kol Gufo / Debilitating Illness # / Sakanat Aiver / Threat to a Limb or Organ (Can in some cases be practically regarded as level 6) # / Sofek Pikuaḥ Nefesh / Possibly Life-Threatening (Practically treated as level 7) # / Pikuaḥ Nefesh / Certainly Life-Threatening For most practical applications the use of medicines on the Sabbath, there are primarily two categories of non-life- threatening (Pikuaḥ Nefesh) illnesses and maladies.
|
|